hober: there's been a lot of progress on this over e-mail while i was gone - i think we're close to producing a consensus proposal
... probably by next week i would say
... can we extend until next week

paulc: are you saying we will end up with a single proposal?

hober: i think we'll end up with 2, one to defer and one that would substantively match the idref proposal

paulc: we'll still have to decide between a now feature and a future feature

hober: yes

rubys: the other proposal was to add transcript - will the consensus include john?

hober: don't know - still catching up on mail

rubys: could be consensus with silvia and not with john

hober: that's possible

<rubys> action-211 due 24 May

<trackbot> ACTION-211 Ted O'Connor to write up a video-transcript IDref proposal for ISSUE-194 by Fri May 11 due date now 24 May

paulc: if you could outline where the community lies when you update proposals that would be helpful

ACTION-213?

<trackbot> ACTION-213 -- Sam Ruby to get JF to deliver a revised ISSUE-194 change proposal by next friday -- due 2012-05-11 -- OPEN

paulc: i built a survey using wbs - that's a link to the draft - this is still closed
... i'm taking feedback from people including chairs and team
... i think i've taken everyone's feedback - this is available to w3c members outside the group because we believe there are some members who might join the WG to participate in this
... this should go out today
... since there may be more technical discussion in these calls we want to be as inclusive as possible

janina: this is the media group in the WG not the a11y TF

paulc: i will make that clear in the text for the survey
... action not yet done but almost

rubys: given a deadline for revised proposals which is today
... so far not seen any revisions

Items Closing Next Week

rubys: None

New Calls this week

rubys: None

New Surveys this week

rubys: None

Decisions this week

rubys: None

Other Business

rubys: 31c re-open request

judy: we received a response from sam on behalf of the chairs and we discussed that in the tf meeting this morning
... several concerns including the framing of the response
... we think what we received is ambiguous as either a review or denial of the request so we're taking it as a review that we intend to discuss a draft of next tuesday and forward with answers to questions raised
... i wanted to first establish if this was intended as a review or denial

rubys: in some sense it is a denial but not intended to close the door - if you update then we'll review

judy: in the current timeframe?

rubys: the timeframe has passed - we're in uncharted territory

judy: i'm assuming we're still okay to continue

rubys: nothing more to add, no

judy: we'll be providing some additional clarifications to that, some concern about the type of evidence being asked for
... will address those in writing

rubys: there are some people who believe in some statements and others that believe the opposite - we'd like to see some concrete evidence

judy: that is my understanding
... i have to point out that there is a perception that the same requirement isn't being put on all parties
... no further comments on 31c for now

rubys: we need to actually show that if the validator was changed then people would actually change behaviour

judy: i did include that in the change proposal but it's difficult to prove harm for something that is not in place yet
... you don't want to have widespread evidence of damage - we want to avoid this happening because of something in the spec

cyns: if someone were to create a controlled experiment looking at behaviour of authors based on validator results would that be helpful?

rubys: comments from an actual user saying i would change behaviour based on validator is something we don't have already

judy: if we just need a few quotes from people that do lots of training that this is exactly the situation they would pay attention to, those kind of things we have seen in the past over and over again
... we can say that more clearly but i don't want to set-up projects to review this

cyns: are you looking for anecdotal evidence or something else?

rubys: anecdotal evidence was called for in the original decision - the closer you can get to actual users saying they will change behaviour the better
... trainers for authors i understand the clarification, but if you can get information directly from authors that's helpful

cyns: the problem is that if you ask people directly they don't know - i find it frustrating that asking trainers is discounted given their experience
... one more point, one of the points judy made was about evidence from, for want of a better word, the other side
... i don't think we have concrete evidence for that - it is similar experience from people dealing with authors
... i'd really like to see real research but at the moment i don't see everyone being asked for the same evidence and i don't think asking authors is enough

rubys: right now we're examining reopening the issue, if the issue is reopened then we'll ask for equal evidence from everyone

cyns: i'm worried about locking out future behaviour like we discussed with 204

judy: i don't think it's a question of future behaviour - the problem isn't locking out innovation, it's a failure to recognize existing authoring tool behaviour - and we have already documented that this though

janina: the objections in the consensus resolution are from one individual that in many cases are looking for a different level of requirements
... for instance that this should not be a pattern that we encourage
... and use language that we use language that says SHOULD NOT use this
... we have not ignored these objections but i don't know we can do anything more with them as it standards
... his recent response is about a whole new approach

rubys: i have 2 questions, one for benjamin about what he does support and he's not here to answer that
... the other question is if we end up with the current two proposals i assume we will get strong objections to one of them
... i think we tweaked cynthia's proposal sufficiently to bring the 2 in line
... the recent version considers the implications of the changes
... i cannot tell if the other proposal is saying exactly the same thing in the details section because it is a diff that is harder to read
... i think the newest change is to discourage use of this

cyns: i can't think of any stronger way of discouraging users than saying SHOULD NOT
... isn't the time for counter proposals long past?

rubys: we have a number of candidates but have also chosen to extend the deadline
... other business?

judy: we need a coordination meeting

rubys: i don't have any unmoveable meetings in the next couple of days

<tantek> I've reviewed the recent messages on Issue 184, and I don't see any actions for me to take to move things forward.

paulc: i'm starting a thread right now with the chairs

judy: i had one could you use that one

paulc: okay

Scribe for next meeting

<glenn> i can scribe

<tantek> For what it's worth I still think the counter-proposal is problematic, both for the reasons the chairs raise, and for the simple fact that a 'type' attribute is unnecessary and actually *hurts* usability of date/time information as compared to the simple and agreed upon <time> element.

rubys: glenn has volunteered, thanks glenn

Adjournment

<tantek> thanks

rubys: thanks everybody

<eliot> thanks!

<tantek> adrianba - I checked the emails on the topic, and no revision was requested of my original change proposal for 184

<tantek> that being said, since from email traffic it appears the counter-proposal is still being incrementally updated, I think I will put in a short section in my original proposal stating briefly why the counter-proposal is both unnecessary and undesirable.

<tantek> I'll also note that there were no objections (and thus consensus) at the recent f2f regarding my original proposal for 184.